Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay, 44238-44239 [2017-20080]

Download as PDF 44238 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices proposed rule change operative upon filing.22 At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved. IV. Solicitation of Comments Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods: Electronic Comments • Use the Commission’s Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml); or • Send an email to rule-comments@ sec.gov. Please include File Number SR– GEMX–2017–42 on the subject line. asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES Paper Comments • Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549–1090. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–GEMX–2017–42. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission’s Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/ rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission’s Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 22 For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule’s impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f). VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR–GEMX– 2017–42 and should be submitted on or before October 12, 2017. For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.23 Eduardo A. Aleman, Assistant Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–20088 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. SR–OCC–2015–02; Release No. 81628] Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay September 14, 2017. On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (‘‘Approval Order’’) approving the Options Clearing Corporation’s (‘‘OCC’’) plan for raising additional capital (‘‘Capital Plan’’ or ‘‘Plan’’) to support its function as a systemically important financial market utility.1 BOX Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc. (‘‘KCG’’), Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna International Group, LLP (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) 2 filed a petition for review of the Approval Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (‘‘D.C. Circuit’’), challenging the Commission’s Approval Order as inconsistent with the Exchange Act and lacking in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act. After filing their petition for review, petitioners filed a motion for a stay in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the Commission’s Approval Order pending the court’s review. The D.C. Circuit denied petitioners’ request for a stay.3 23 17 CFR 200.30–3(a)(12). Act Release No. 77112 (Feb. 11, 2016), File No. SR–OCC–2015–02. 2 BATS Global Markets, Inc. (‘‘BATS’’) was initially a petitioner, but later withdrew. 3 The petitioners had also opposed OCC’s motion to lift the automatic stay in place pending the 1 Exchange PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 In ruling on the petition for review, the D.C. Circuit concluded that the Approval Order did not ‘‘represent the kind of reasoned decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the Administrative Procedure Act,’’ and therefore remanded the case to the Commission for further proceedings.4 In so ruling, the court did not reach any of petitioners’ arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the substantive requirements of the Exchange Act, finding instead that the Commission’s failure to make the required findings under the Act required a remand.5 The court also considered whether to vacate the Approval Order prior to remand, and decided not to vacate. As the court explained, ‘‘the SEC may be able to approve the Plan once again, after conducting a proper analysis on remand.’’ 6 Because both parties had assured the court that it would be possible to unwind the Capital Plan at a later time, and ‘‘no party contends that the task would be materially more difficult if done then rather than now,’’ the court declined to vacate the Capital Plan and instead remanded the case ‘‘to give the SEC an opportunity to properly evaluate the Plan.’’ 7 The D.C. Circuit’s mandate, which issued on August 18, 2017, returned the matter to the Commission for further proceedings.8 Petitioners 9 now seek a partial stay of the Capital Plan—specifically, a stay of the dividend payments to be made to the shareholder exchanges under the Plan—while the Commission considers the Plan as directed by the D.C. Circuit. OCC opposes the motion. In determining whether to grant a stay motion, the Commission typically considers whether (i) there is a strong likelihood that the moving party will succeed on the merits of its appeal; (ii) the moving party will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (iii) any person will suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and (iv) a stay is likely to serve Commission’s review of the Capital Plan. The Commission found, however, that it was ‘‘in the public interest to the lift the stay during the pendency of the Commission’s review.’’ Exchange Act Release No. 75886 at 2 (Sept. 10, 2015), File No. SR–OCC–2015–02. The Commission noted that it ‘‘believes that the concerns raised by Petitioners regarding potential monetary and competitive harm do not currently justify maintaining the stay during the pendency of the Commission’s review.’’ Id. 4 Susquehanna Int’l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 443 (D.C. Cir. 2017). 5 Id. at 446. 6 Id. at 451. 7 Id. 8 By separate order of today’s date, we are issuing a scheduling order governing the proceedings on remand. 9 Petitioner KCG has not joined the instant motion. E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM 21SEN1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 182 / Thursday, September 21, 2017 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES the public interest.10 The party seeking a stay has the burden of establishing that relief is warranted.11 These factors weigh against granting petitioners’ stay request. First, with respect to likelihood of success on the merits, we note that the court did not address petitioners’ arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with the Exchange Act. Rather, it remanded for the Commission to ‘‘properly evaluate the Plan.’’ 12 By repeating their same arguments regarding consistency with the Act in support of a stay, petitioners are asking the Commission to opine on their likelihood of success before engaging in the further analysis directed by the court. We are not yet in a position to do so. Unlike the more typical situation in which the Commission addresses stay motions, here there is neither a full record nor a final decision on which to base such an analysis. Thus, we do not view this factor as weighing in favor of the partial stay request. Second, petitioners fail to establish that they will be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay. To demonstrate irreparable harm, petitioners ‘‘must show an injury that is ‘both certain and great’ and ‘actual and not theoretical.’ ’’ 13 ‘‘A stay ‘will not be granted [based on] something merely feared as liable to occur at some indefinite time.’ ’’ 14 That ‘‘an applicant may suffer financial detriment does not rise to the level of irreparable injury warranting issuance of a stay.’’ 15 Petitioners acknowledge that the monetary aspects of the Plan ‘‘are readily reversible’’ 16 and that the court concluded that ‘‘the task of unwinding 10 Bernerd E. Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at *1 (July 29, 2016); see also Order Preliminarily Considering Whether to Issue Stay Sua Sponte and Establishing Guidelines for Seeking Stay Applications, Exchange Act Release No. 33870, 1994 WL 17920, at *1 (Apr. 7, 1994). 11 Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at *1. 12 866 F.3d at 451. 13 Kenny A. Akindemowo, Exchange Act Release No. 78352, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (July 18, 2016) (quoting Donald L. Koch, Exchange Act Release No. 72443, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2 (June 20, 2014)); accord Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). 14 Akindemowo, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (quoting Koch, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2); accord Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674. 15 Robert J. Prager, Exchange Act Release No. 50634, 2004 WL 2480717, at *1 (Nov. 4, 2004); see also William Timpinaro, Exchange Act Release No. 29927, 1991 WL 288326, at *3 (Nov. 12, 1991) (recognizing that ‘‘[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms of money, time, and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a stay, are not enough’’ to constitute irreparable harm) (quoting Va. Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)). 16 Mot. at 1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:52 Sep 20, 2017 Jkt 241001 the Plan would be no more difficult if done after remand rather than immediately.’’ 17 They nonetheless argue that ‘‘[a] stay of the dividend is needed to prevent distortion of the competitive landscape from continuing to harm competition.’’ 18 But petitioners provide no evidence that competitors will be ‘‘driven from the marketplace’’ or that investors have ‘‘lost liquidity,’’ as petitioners claim.19 Thus, petitioners’ argument—which presumes they are correct on the merits regarding the Plan’s effect on competition—is too speculative at this stage to be the basis for relief. We also note that petitioners made these same arguments regarding competitive harm before the D.C. Circuit, yet the court did not stay or vacate the Plan. Finally, petitioners have not demonstrated that the balance of harm to others in the absence of a stay and the public interest favors a stay. Petitioners argue that ‘‘a stay would injur[e] nobody,’’ 20 because they are asking only to stay the dividend component of the Plan. But even setting aside the impact on shareholder exchanges that are due the dividends under the Plan, petitioners’ claim that the dividend component of the plan can be isolated is overly simplistic. Under the Plan, ‘‘OCC would not be able to pay a refund on a particular date unless dividends were paid on the same date.’’ 21 A stay of the dividends to the shareholders would thus have the effect of also staying the payment of refunds to OCC’s members. Moreover, as discussed above, the court squarely considered whether to vacate the Plan or leave it in effect during the Commission’s reconsideration, and decided to leave the Plan, including the provisions with respect to dividends, in place. Petitioners’ request to stay that part of the Plan therefore, in fact, seeks a change in the status quo that we believe is unsupported at this time. Granting petitioners’ request would require piecemeal suspension of portions of the Plan, while leaving others in place, despite at least the possibility of having to reinstitute those provisions at a later 17 Mot. at 16. 18 Id. 19 Id. Petitioners cite the acquisition of BATS by CBOE Holdings, Inc.—which, we note, closed on February 28, 2017—in support of their argument, stating that there has been consolidation in the exchange marketplace while the Capital Plan has been in effect. But they supply no evidence of a causal relationship between that acquisition and the Capital Plan or the dividends at issue. 20 Mot. at 16. 21 Exchange Act Release No. 74136 (Notice of Proposed Rule Change) at 15, File No. SR–OCC– 2015–02. PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 44239 date if the Commission, after conducting the required analysis on remand, should determine to approve the Plan. Indeed, the court implicitly rejected this type of partial stay when petitioners proposed it in a pre-decision letter to the court 22 and the court remanded without entering such a stay. We believe, as the court did, that the better course is to leave the status quo in place while we conduct a further review of the entirety of the Plan. Accordingly, we decline to impose the partial stay requested. For the reasons stated above, it is hereby: Ordered that movants’ request for a partial stay of the Capital Plan while the Commission considers the Plan pursuant to the direction of the D.C. Circuit is Denied. By the Commission. Brent J. Fields, Secretary. [FR Doc. 2017–20080 Filed 9–20–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8011–01–P SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION [File No. SR–OCC–2015–02; Release No. 81629] Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the The Options Clearing Corporation For an Order Granting the Approval of Proposed Rule Change Concerning a Proposed Capital Plan for Raising Additional Capital That Would Support the Options Clearing Corporation’s Function as a Systemically Important Financial Market Utility; Corrected Order Scheduling Filing of Statements on Review September 14, 2017. On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (‘‘Approval Order’’) approving the plan of the Options Clearing Corporation’s (‘‘OCC’’) for raising additional capital (the ‘‘Plan’’) to support its function as a systemically important financial market utility.1 BOX Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc., Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna International Group, LLP (collectively ‘‘petitioners’’) 2 filed a 22 See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter from petitioners, dated April 17, 2017 (asking the court ‘‘at a minimum, to stay operation of the dividend component of the Plan during a remand’’). 1 Exchange Act Release No. 77112, File No. SR– OCC–2015–02. 2 BATS Global Markets, Inc., was initially a petitioner, but later withdrew. E:\FR\FM\21SEN1.SGM 21SEN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 182 (Thursday, September 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44238-44239]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20080]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. SR-OCC-2015-02; Release No. 81628]


Before the Securities and Exchange Commission; Securities 
Exchange Act of 1934; In the Matter of the Options Clearing 
Corporation; Corrected Order Denying Motion for Stay

September 14, 2017.
    On February 11, 2016, the Commission issued an order (``Approval 
Order'') approving the Options Clearing Corporation's (``OCC'') plan 
for raising additional capital (``Capital Plan'' or ``Plan'') to 
support its function as a systemically important financial market 
utility.\1\ BOX Options Exchange LLC, KCG Holdings, Inc. (``KCG''), 
Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, and Susquehanna 
International Group, LLP (collectively ``petitioners'') \2\ filed a 
petition for review of the Approval Order in the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit''), challenging 
the Commission's Approval Order as inconsistent with the Exchange Act 
and lacking in the reasoned decisionmaking required by the 
Administrative Procedure Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exchange Act Release No. 77112 (Feb. 11, 2016), File No. SR-
OCC-2015-02.
    \2\ BATS Global Markets, Inc. (``BATS'') was initially a 
petitioner, but later withdrew.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After filing their petition for review, petitioners filed a motion 
for a stay in the D.C. Circuit asking the court to stay the 
Commission's Approval Order pending the court's review. The D.C. 
Circuit denied petitioners' request for a stay.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The petitioners had also opposed OCC's motion to lift the 
automatic stay in place pending the Commission's review of the 
Capital Plan. The Commission found, however, that it was ``in the 
public interest to the lift the stay during the pendency of the 
Commission's review.'' Exchange Act Release No. 75886 at 2 (Sept. 
10, 2015), File No. SR-OCC-2015-02. The Commission noted that it 
``believes that the concerns raised by Petitioners regarding 
potential monetary and competitive harm do not currently justify 
maintaining the stay during the pendency of the Commission's 
review.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In ruling on the petition for review, the D.C. Circuit concluded 
that the Approval Order did not ``represent the kind of reasoned 
decisionmaking required by either the Exchange Act or the 
Administrative Procedure Act,'' and therefore remanded the case to the 
Commission for further proceedings.\4\ In so ruling, the court did not 
reach any of petitioners' arguments that the Plan was inconsistent with 
the substantive requirements of the Exchange Act, finding instead that 
the Commission's failure to make the required findings under the Act 
required a remand.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Susquehanna Int'l Grp., LLP v. SEC, 866 F.3d 442, 443 (D.C. 
Cir. 2017).
    \5\ Id. at 446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The court also considered whether to vacate the Approval Order 
prior to remand, and decided not to vacate. As the court explained, 
``the SEC may be able to approve the Plan once again, after conducting 
a proper analysis on remand.'' \6\ Because both parties had assured the 
court that it would be possible to unwind the Capital Plan at a later 
time, and ``no party contends that the task would be materially more 
difficult if done then rather than now,'' the court declined to vacate 
the Capital Plan and instead remanded the case ``to give the SEC an 
opportunity to properly evaluate the Plan.'' \7\ The D.C. Circuit's 
mandate, which issued on August 18, 2017, returned the matter to the 
Commission for further proceedings.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Id. at 451.
    \7\ Id.
    \8\ By separate order of today's date, we are issuing a 
scheduling order governing the proceedings on remand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Petitioners \9\ now seek a partial stay of the Capital Plan--
specifically, a stay of the dividend payments to be made to the 
shareholder exchanges under the Plan--while the Commission considers 
the Plan as directed by the D.C. Circuit. OCC opposes the motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Petitioner KCG has not joined the instant motion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In determining whether to grant a stay motion, the Commission 
typically considers whether (i) there is a strong likelihood that the 
moving party will succeed on the merits of its appeal; (ii) the moving 
party will suffer irreparable harm without a stay; (iii) any person 
will suffer substantial harm as a result of a stay; and (iv) a stay is 
likely to serve

[[Page 44239]]

the public interest.\10\ The party seeking a stay has the burden of 
establishing that relief is warranted.\11\ These factors weigh against 
granting petitioners' stay request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Bernerd E. Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 
4060106, at *1 (July 29, 2016); see also Order Preliminarily 
Considering Whether to Issue Stay Sua Sponte and Establishing 
Guidelines for Seeking Stay Applications, Exchange Act Release No. 
33870, 1994 WL 17920, at *1 (Apr. 7, 1994).
    \11\ Young, Exchange Act Release No. 78440, 2016 WL 4060106, at 
*1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, with respect to likelihood of success on the merits, we note 
that the court did not address petitioners' arguments that the Plan was 
inconsistent with the Exchange Act. Rather, it remanded for the 
Commission to ``properly evaluate the Plan.'' \12\ By repeating their 
same arguments regarding consistency with the Act in support of a stay, 
petitioners are asking the Commission to opine on their likelihood of 
success before engaging in the further analysis directed by the court. 
We are not yet in a position to do so. Unlike the more typical 
situation in which the Commission addresses stay motions, here there is 
neither a full record nor a final decision on which to base such an 
analysis. Thus, we do not view this factor as weighing in favor of the 
partial stay request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 866 F.3d at 451.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, petitioners fail to establish that they will be irreparably 
harmed in the absence of a stay. To demonstrate irreparable harm, 
petitioners ``must show an injury that is `both certain and great' and 
`actual and not theoretical.' '' \13\ ``A stay `will not be granted 
[based on] something merely feared as liable to occur at some 
indefinite time.' '' \14\ That ``an applicant may suffer financial 
detriment does not rise to the level of irreparable injury warranting 
issuance of a stay.'' \15\ Petitioners acknowledge that the monetary 
aspects of the Plan ``are readily reversible'' \16\ and that the court 
concluded that ``the task of unwinding the Plan would be no more 
difficult if done after remand rather than immediately.'' \17\ They 
nonetheless argue that ``[a] stay of the dividend is needed to prevent 
distortion of the competitive landscape from continuing to harm 
competition.'' \18\ But petitioners provide no evidence that 
competitors will be ``driven from the marketplace'' or that investors 
have ``lost liquidity,'' as petitioners claim.\19\ Thus, petitioners' 
argument--which presumes they are correct on the merits regarding the 
Plan's effect on competition--is too speculative at this stage to be 
the basis for relief. We also note that petitioners made these same 
arguments regarding competitive harm before the D.C. Circuit, yet the 
court did not stay or vacate the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Kenny A. Akindemowo, Exchange Act Release No. 78352, 2016 
WL 3877888, at *2 (July 18, 2016) (quoting Donald L. Koch, Exchange 
Act Release No. 72443, 2014 WL 2800778, at *2 (June 20, 2014)); 
accord Wis. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
    \14\ Akindemowo, 2016 WL 3877888, at *2 (quoting Koch, 2014 WL 
2800778, at *2); accord Wis. Gas Co., 758 F.2d at 674.
    \15\ Robert J. Prager, Exchange Act Release No. 50634, 2004 WL 
2480717, at *1 (Nov. 4, 2004); see also William Timpinaro, Exchange 
Act Release No. 29927, 1991 WL 288326, at *3 (Nov. 12, 1991) 
(recognizing that ``[m]ere injuries, however substantial, in terms 
of money, time, and energy necessarily expended in the absence of a 
stay, are not enough'' to constitute irreparable harm) (quoting Va. 
Petroleum Jobbers Ass'n v. FPC, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958)).
    \16\ Mot. at 1.
    \17\ Mot. at 16.
    \18\ Id.
    \19\ Id. Petitioners cite the acquisition of BATS by CBOE 
Holdings, Inc.--which, we note, closed on February 28, 2017--in 
support of their argument, stating that there has been consolidation 
in the exchange marketplace while the Capital Plan has been in 
effect. But they supply no evidence of a causal relationship between 
that acquisition and the Capital Plan or the dividends at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, petitioners have not demonstrated that the balance of harm 
to others in the absence of a stay and the public interest favors a 
stay. Petitioners argue that ``a stay would injur[e] nobody,'' \20\ 
because they are asking only to stay the dividend component of the 
Plan. But even setting aside the impact on shareholder exchanges that 
are due the dividends under the Plan, petitioners' claim that the 
dividend component of the plan can be isolated is overly simplistic. 
Under the Plan, ``OCC would not be able to pay a refund on a particular 
date unless dividends were paid on the same date.'' \21\ A stay of the 
dividends to the shareholders would thus have the effect of also 
staying the payment of refunds to OCC's members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Mot. at 16.
    \21\ Exchange Act Release No. 74136 (Notice of Proposed Rule 
Change) at 15, File No. SR-OCC-2015-02.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, as discussed above, the court squarely considered whether 
to vacate the Plan or leave it in effect during the Commission's 
reconsideration, and decided to leave the Plan, including the 
provisions with respect to dividends, in place. Petitioners' request to 
stay that part of the Plan therefore, in fact, seeks a change in the 
status quo that we believe is unsupported at this time. Granting 
petitioners' request would require piecemeal suspension of portions of 
the Plan, while leaving others in place, despite at least the 
possibility of having to reinstitute those provisions at a later date 
if the Commission, after conducting the required analysis on remand, 
should determine to approve the Plan. Indeed, the court implicitly 
rejected this type of partial stay when petitioners proposed it in a 
pre-decision letter to the court \22\ and the court remanded without 
entering such a stay. We believe, as the court did, that the better 
course is to leave the status quo in place while we conduct a further 
review of the entirety of the Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) letter from petitioners, dated 
April 17, 2017 (asking the court ``at a minimum, to stay operation 
of the dividend component of the Plan during a remand'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, we decline to impose the partial stay requested.
    For the reasons stated above, it is hereby:
    Ordered that movants' request for a partial stay of the Capital 
Plan while the Commission considers the Plan pursuant to the direction 
of the D.C. Circuit is Denied.

    By the Commission.

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-20080 Filed 9-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P